1. Home
  2. amps-preamps
  3. 139531-117233

Best Preamp New or Used up to $3,000 ??

Okay I am listening. The models I am looking at are:
Audible Illusions L3 .$2,000+
Aesthetic Calypso.$2,000+.
Prima Luna Dialogue $2,200
EAR 834L.$1,700.
Benchmark LA4 (New) $2,600.
McIntosh 2500.$4,000 (Over budget but has tone controls and Phono stage)
Other Equipment: Cary MK 120-s, Oppo 205, Older Tannoys FSMs-very efficient.
Music I enjoy: Vocals, 70 db, Near field position.
So if you have owned any of the above, please share your experience.
I am attracted to these brands as they seem to place value on things related to musicality.
Separate quality Power supply, Dual Mono setup, Quality components. Remotes (except EAR)
So what am I not valuing that I should be?
Thanks in advance.

firstnot
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
7,068 posts
 
As the fabled "perfect" preamp "sound like a piece of wire" adding or detracting nothing which is what your doing now by going direct.
The problem with a straight wire is that many sources don't really provide an adequate means of controlling the artifacts of the interconnect cable and often have substandard means of controlling volume (the Oppo is a good example of the latter). A passive control is **not** a simple bit of wire- the effect of the control can be to reduce the efficacy of the output coupling capacitor of the source while at the same time effectively increasing the apparent output impedance of the source, thus reducing bass impact. Reducing impact is the most common complaint we hear about passive volume control systems.
georgehifi's avatar
georgehifi
4,966 posts
 
 many sources don't really provide an adequate means of controlling the artifacts of the interconnect cable and often have substandard means of controlling volume (the Oppo is a good example of the latter).
The correction to the above is. That only a "very few" sources don't provide. (some tube ones).
And they all have to "control" interconnects going to the pre, I don't know any that don't pass their signal without using interconnects, unless you use wireless transmission. 
And many have volume controls better than what's in many preamps.
 
A passive control is **not** a simple bit of wire-
I don't ever think I said it was, but what I have said it's the next best thing to doing direct, which is "like a piece of wire".

  Reducing impact is the most common complaint we hear about passive volume control systems.
And this is your most common complaint, there are a multitude of others that say it's the other way around.
Because an "active preamp" cannot increase the dynamic range any more than what source is giving, unless it has an inbuilt "dynamic range enhancer" (DBX and they sound s**t).  It can only serve to reduce the dynamic range, because it's not "a piece of wire"    

Cheers George
   
michaelgreenaudio's avatar
michaelgreenaudio
643 posts
 

Hi Jeff

There are so many ways to change the sound of your system, and everything affects everything else. I wouldn't jump into a preamp until I studied all the variables your system can give you by adding components. It's also important to do the apples vs apples thing. I'm sure everyone here means well, but are they listening the same way you are?

For example: someone recommending a preamp for you listening to their setup "far field" while your listening "near field" really doesn't tell you much. I'm an extreme near field listener myself in my current setup and some of the preamps suggested I wouldn't touch, because frankly they don't do so well when your near fielding it. Now you may be closer to a "mid field" listener than I am, but I would be careful as to not screwup your stage envelope.

All of these preamps are probably great setup a certain way, but for the near field listener, we tend to want to fall deeper into the stage (at least I do). So my suggestion when asking people stuff is to see where they are at as a listener. Huge difference between an against the wall listener and mid, near or extreme near.

good luck, just thought I would jump in since you mentioned position

Michael Green

http://www.michaelgreenaudio.net/

mrdecibel
1,244 posts
 
Contact Tim Stinson at Luminous Audio. Several months ago I replaced two $5-$6 K preamps with a Luminous Audio Axiom, Walker mod, 3 in, 2 out, single ended, with remote, passive unit, and could not be happier. What I am hearing is less coloration, greater levels of detail and information, and a greater sense of prat, dynamics and space. If you want to hear what the recording, mixing and mastering engineers of your recorded music have done, this is the way. Go to their website. Enjoy, MrD.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
7,068 posts
 
Because an "active preamp" cannot increase the dynamic range any more than what source is giving, unless it has an inbuilt "dynamic range enhancer" (DBX and they sound s**t). It can only serve to reduce the dynamic range, because it's not "a piece of wire"  
I don't like DBX either for the same reason. But that's not the problem; what a good preamp can do is not mess up the relationship of the output impedance of the source with respect to the cable or the amplifier input impedance. For this reason a buffer without gain can often work as well if no gain is required.

IOW, a preamp does not have to increase dynamic impact, it simply has to preserve it, which many passives simply fail to do.

Its only taken digital designers about 20-30 years to come around to the fact that they need to put a good quality volume control in their gear. Because so many don't, this is a good reason for an active preamp. Additionally, should any other source be desired, like a tuner or turntable, a preamp is mandatory since those source don't drive a power amp to full output.
More to discover